The International Atomic Energy Agency action plan on radiation protection of patients and staff in interventional procedures: Achieving change in practice |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Konstantopoulio General Hospital, Agias Olgas 3-5, 14233 Nea Ionia, Greece;2. Department of Radiology and Medicine, Columbia University, New York, USA;3. FRCP, FRCR, Chair ICRP, 280 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9, Canada;4. Radiation Protection of Patients Unit, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna International Center, Vienna, Austria;5. Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD, USA;6. Hemodynamic Department, Cardiovascular Service, Luis Calvo Mackenna Hospital, Santiago, Chile;7. Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA;8. Radiology Department, Medical School, Complutense University, 28040 Madrid, Spain;1. Vinca Institute of Nuclear Science, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia;2. Greek Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC), Attiki, Greece;3. ENEA-Radiation Protection Institute, Bologna, Italy;4. Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona, Spain;5. Institute of Radiation Physics, University Hospital of Lausanne (CHUV);6. University Hospital of Geneva (HUG), Switzerland;7. Department of Medical Physics & Bioengineering, St. James’s Hospital, Dublin, Ireland;1. National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Physics Laboratory, Athens, Greece;2. Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, Athens, Greece;3. Konstantopoulio General Hospital, Nea Ionia, Athens, Greece;1. National Centre of Radiobiology and Radiation Protection, Sofia, Bulgaria;2. Software Company Ltd, Sofia, Bulgaria;3. UMHAT “Saint Ekaterina”, Sofia, Bulgaria;4. National Cardiology Hospital, Sofia, Bulgaria;5. University Hospital “Aleksandrovska”, Sofia, Bulgaria;6. Acibadem City Clinic Tokuda Hospital, Sofia, Bulgaria;7. Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria;8. Regional Health Inspectorate, Ruse, Bulgaria;9. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria;1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York;2. Department of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York;3. Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California;4. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California;5. Department of Imaging Physics, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas;6. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts;7. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota;8. Department of Radiology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California |
| |
| Abstract: | IntroductionThe International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) organized the 3rd international conference on radiation protection (RP) of patients in December 2017. This paper presents the conclusions on the interventional procedures (IP) session.Material and methodsThe IAEA conference was conducted as a series of plenary sessions followed by various thematic sessions. “Radiation protection of patients and staff in interventional procedures” session keynote speakers presented information on: 1) Risk management of skin injuries, 2) Occupational radiation risks and 3) RP for paediatric patients. Then, a summary of the session-related papers was presented by a rapporteur, followed by an open question-and-answer discussion.ResultsSixty-seven percent (67%) of papers came from Europe. Forty-four percent (44%) were patient studies, 44% were occupational and 12% were combined studies. Occupational studies were mostly on eye lens dosimetry. The rest were on scattered radiation measurements and dose tracking. The majority of patient studies related to patient exposure with only one study on paediatric patients. Automatic patient dose reporting is considered as a first step for dose optimization. Despite efforts, paediatric IP radiation dose data are still scarce. The keynote speakers outlined recent achievements but also challenges in the field. Forecasting technology, task-specific targeted education from educators familiar with the clinical situation, more accurate estimation of lens doses and improved identification of high-risk professional groups are some of the areas they focused on.ConclusionsManufacturers play an important role in making patients safer. Low dose technologies are still expensive and manufacturers should make these affordable in less resourced countries. Automatic patient dose reporting and real-time skin dose map are important for dose optimization. Clinical audit and better QA processes together with more studies on the impact of lens opacities in clinical practice and on paediatric patients are needed. |
| |
| Keywords: | Radiation protection Risk management of patients Occupational dose Paediatric dose |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
